The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 141 - The Most Barbaric Pro-Abortion Ad Of All Time

Episode Date: November 12, 2018

Tucker Carlson cusses out a "gay Latino immigrant" for good reason. A demented pro-abortion ad accidentally reveals everything wrong with the pro-abortion side. People in Brooklyn are trading embryos like playing cards. I have plenty to say about all of this. Date: 11-12-2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wills show, the left now claims that Tucker Carlson harassed a gay Latino immigrant at a bar, but there's more to the story. We'll talk about it. Also, a leftist group put out the most horrific, deranged, demented, terrible pro-abortion ad of all time. What does the ad tell us about the pro-abortion position? Finally, embryo swapping is the latest fad in our decaying society. What does it tell us about the state of our culture? All of that coming up on the Matt Wall Show. So Michael Avanotti is the least credible person in in the world, I think. He is, it's almost, it's almost amazing how lacking incredible. He is so lacking in credibility that you don't, you have to almost doubt at this point whether he himself exists. He has,

he has so little credibility that, that even his own, his own existence could now be called into question. But he is investigating, investigating claims that, Parker Carlson assaulted a gay Latino immigrant at a restaurant in in Virginia a month ago. Now, that, of course, really, really checks all the boxes, doesn't it? A gay Latino immigrant. Because that's for the left, I mean, having a Fox News host assault a gay Latino immigrant. That's just there. That is a headline from heaven for them.

Now, Avanadi, of course, also is the guy that investigated claims that Brett Kavanaughal was the ringleader of a roving band of gang rapists when he was in high school. And he determined that those claims were true, even as everyone else who investigated them, determined that they were the insane ramblings of an emotionally unstable woman who never even knew Brett Kavanaugh. So the point is, you know,

you could be a little suspicious of the results of his investigation. There is a video of this altercation. And if you watch the video, it shows no assault occurring. All it shows is Carl, is Carlson telling the man to get the F out of here repeatedly. You keep saying get the F out of here, out of here.

Now, so you see that, you think, well, why is he saying that to the guy? Only in the fevered imagination of a left winger, is it at all plausible that Tucker Carlson would have randomly started yelling get the F out of here to someone because they're gay and Latino, right? I mean, if that's how he reacts to gay people and to Latinos, there should be a video of him screaming at somebody every day. He lives in D.C., for God's sake. He works in media in D.C.

You think the first time he's ever come across someone in one of those two categories? So any rational person would see the video and think, well, there's got to be more to this story. And there is Carlson last night filled in the details. He says that he, Carlson was out to eat with his family, including his adult daughter and his adult son. his daughter got up to go to the bathroom, at which point the man, having seen that she was at the table with Carlson, cussed her out, called her Carlson's whore, then used other derogatory names, at which point Carlson came over with his son. His son threw a glass of wine on the guy. Carlson told him to get the F out, and that's what we see in the video. Now, if that is what happened, and I think his story sounds much more plausible than the other dude's story. because we know that left-winger's do have no problem harassing the family members of those they dislike. So that's a totally plausible story. And if that is what happened, then Carlson was perfectly justified in his response.

He would have been justified. In fact, if I'm annoyed at him at all or upset with him, it's only because he didn't punch the guy in the mouth, which he would have been perfectly justified in doing. But we also have to keep something else in mind here. It's just something to remember. The guy, the supposed victim, although the real victim here apparently is Carlson's daughter, who was harassed. But the guy whining about being a victim is apparently an LGBT activist. Well, I guess it falls on me, sadly, to be the one to point out, that LGBT activists make up stories all the time.

They are notorious for fabricating fake hate crimes. This is something that leftists do, and this is something that, you know, unfortunately, LGBT activists do most of all. And you can go online and just look up fake hate crime hoaxes. You'll find just so many of them. In fact, there's a whole one of my favorite subgenres of the fake hate crime. category are the racist or homophobic notes that are left on receipts. I mean, there are dozens of these kinds of stories that for some reason, left-winger, they love to make up stories where a racist or homophobic person writes a terrible note on a receipt and leaves it for their waiter or waitress.

There was a story recently about a guy, I forget what his name was, but in Arab, a man. American waiter at a restaurant, posted a picture of a receipt, of a note that was left on a receipt from one of his tables. And the note said, I think it said something like, we don't tip terrorists. And he posed on Facebook, it goes viral. And then, of course, it comes out later that he wrote the note himself. It was made up. But you see that kind of, there was another one, there's been a lot of these kinds of things. There have been a bunch of someone allegedly writing N-word where the

tip line is supposed to go. There was one few years ago of a, of a lesbian woman waitress, and she posts a picture of a note on receipt. The note said, we disagree with your lifestyle. And so we're not going to tip. And of course, it comes out that she made up that story. But it's just, look, it's not, it's not impossible that someone could really write a note like that. But we would have to believe that whoever wrote that note either had. has never had a brown-skinned person as a waiter or never had, and I don't even know how they would know that your waitress is a lesbian, but they would have never had a female who they suspect might be a lesbian as a waitress, or they leave notes like that all the time. And this is the first time we're seeing it on Facebook. But either way, it just doesn't, it's very implausible. And you, with all of these stories, it shows you something about, it reveals how the left views the opposition. Where they think of us, they have this cartoonish idea of us, where they hear a story that Tucker Carlson, because he works at Fox News, would randomly just start cussing out a gay,

at a bar for no reason other than the fact that he's a gay Latino. And a lot of leftists hear that story apparently and think, yeah, well, that makes sense. Yeah, sure. That's exactly what they would do. No, that's not what they would do. It's possible there are people in the country who would react that way, but it's in, it's not very plausible. There's probably another explanation.

So you have the fact that this is an LGBT activist notorious for making up hay crimes, then you throw a Michael Avonati on top of it and, uh, and there's just no reason to believe their version of the story. And I'll say one more thing about this. If you harass a man's family, if you harass a man's daughter, wife, son, you deserve whatever comes next. If he lays you out on the floor, if he breaks her nose, you deserve that. Because a man has the moral right to defend his family and to teach a lesson to anyone who would harass them. So this guy should be thanking Tucker Carlson for showing such restraint.

He should be writing a thank you note to him and saying, thank you for not punching me in the nose. Thank you so much for that, sir. That's what he should be doing. So he's not only a harasser of women, apparently, but he's also rude for not thanking Carlson, for reacting the way that a lot of fathers would. Okay. What else? speaking of far-left lunacy,

a far-left advocacy group called the Agenda Project, an appropriately creepy-sounding name, just put out an absolutely demented ad in support of Planned Parenthood. And I wrote a piece about this is up on the Daily Wire right now. Now, any advertisement supporting Planned Parenthood

is going to be demented and horrible by definition, but this one really goes beyond what you might even expect. The ad is titled The Chosen, and it's a 40-second video, and it opens with, and go to my article about it. You can see the video itself,

but it opens with this footage of a beautiful, smiling baby girl looking right into the camera. She's giggling and laughing, and there is kind of a lullaby music playing in the background. and then the words come up on the screen saying she deserves to be loved. And you see that and you think, well, well, yes, I agree.

Yes, indeed, she deserves to be loved. And then next, see a little bit more footage of the girl, and then the words come up, she deserves to be wanted. And again, the viewer must concur. She does indeed deserve to be wanted. And then comes the kicker, she deserves to be a choice. and then we're urged to stand with Planned Parenthood as the picture fades. Now, let's leave aside the most disturbing aspect of this video,

which is that somebody apparently allowed their child to be used for it. Assuming this video was not made under false pretenses or they didn't find some kind of stock footage of a baby or something, but if a parent actually did offer up their kid for this kind of thing, then it seems that this particular child who deserves to be loved is not actually loved by her parents, because no parent who loves their child would use their child in that way. But speaking about the message itself, what makes the message itself so barbaric, so horrific, is two things. First of all, and I know this shouldn't even need to be explained, but I'm going to explain it anyway. The first problem here is that.

is that a baby's murder, a baby's violent killing, is presented as something that the baby deserves. But then we ask, well, how could a baby deserve to be executed? In what sense are we using the word deserved? Because to deserve something needs to be worthy of it. And so we're talking about either a reward or punishment. So is the child worthy of punishment? has she done to deserve this penalty? Or do we mean deserve in the sense of reward? Well, what sort of reward is that to be killed? I have to wonder, the makers of this video, would they like to be

rewarded in a similar way? Would they appreciate it if somebody rewarded them by crushing their skulls? I assume not. So if they wouldn't want to be rewarded this way, then how can they speak for the child on this matter. Now, I can only assume that some text is missing from this. So I can only assume it was supposed to say something like, she deserves to be loved, she deserves to be wanted, but if she isn't, then she deserves to die. But that assumes that everybody who is, which, and this is what pro-abortion people assume, and are very clear about when they, you know, are very upfront. they assume that everybody who isn't loved or wanted by their biological parents would prefer to forfeit their lives entirely. That's what they assume. And you hear this from all the time, they say, well, you know, it's an unwanted child. What are we going to do with an unwanted child?

They're assuming that if you are a child who is not wanted for whatever reason by their biological parents, well, there's no way that such a child could ever go on to lead a, a fulfilling and happy life. But in saying that, they're ignoring the testimonies of many millions and millions of people who were not, whose biological parents would not or could not care for them and yet have gone on to be perfectly happy. And yeah, I'm sure that there are some people who were born under those circumstances and did not go on to lead happy lives. I'm sure you could even find me people who were bored under those circumstances, went on to lead miserable lives, and then tragically killed themselves. I'm sure you can find me cases like that. But each individual deserves to make a choice between trying to live through difficult circumstances and finding happiness and fulfillment in the midst of it or giving up. And I certainly hope that nobody makes a choice to give up. But once you're an adult, nobody can stop you if that's the choice you want to make. The vast majority of the majority of

of people, if given the option, will choose the former. They will choose to live through it and find happiness in it. That's what most people do. And so if we want to talk about deserve, what people deserve, every person deserves to make that choice for themselves. But here's the real point here. The second thing that makes this video, this ad so disturbing is that it's honest. It shows us, It doesn't show us a clump of cells. It shows us a baby. And it calls the baby, she. It uses that very personal word there, she.

Not it, not that thing, not fetus. It says she. It seems almost to go out of its way to highlight the beauty and lovability of this adorable child. So it presents human life to us, wondrous, miraculous human life. And it puts that right in front of our face. And then it says, yes, it is good to kill this person. This is something that you rarely see from pro-abortion people, but every once in a while you do. You see them looking straight into the dark, hideous heart of abortion advocacy and confronting it and not flinching and saying, yep, that's what I see.

support. So that's, that's, that is honesty. They're being forthright about it. Abortion kills babies. So I think we should give the agenda project some credit for being open and honest about, about what they believe and what they support. We could at least give them credit for that. And then we should also condemn them for believing and supporting something so deranged and cruel and horrible. And then we should shudder. in terror, as we realize that many millions of Americans agree with them. But that's the main takeaway here. What does this tell you?

What does it tell you that the pro-abortion position is seems so explicitly diabolical when it's stated plainly and honestly? That should tell you something about the position that you hold. If it makes people recoil in shock and horror the moment that you do, drop the euphemisms? Well, that should really tell you something. If even people on, if even some people on your own side have this visceral gut reaction against it when you drop the euphemisms and take off the mask and just show it for what it is, well, again, that should tell you something. All right. One more thing I wanted to talk about. This is a interesting,

interesting a couple interesting cases here not completely disconnected from what we just talked about but there was a story this past week about a couple in Brooklyn of course

that is they're swapping embryos with someone else there's an actress had a girl embryo but wanted a boy embryo and then there's a couple who had a boy embryo

but wanted a girl embryo embryo. So apparently they are trading embryos. Trading them like kids used to trade Pokemon cards. Okay, that's what they're, do kids still trade Pokemon? I have no idea. Or when I was a kid, we used to trade pogs. So for, you know, that lasted for about six months that fed. But so that's how they're trading them. Now, there was also a story of a lesbian couple that's, that swapped an embryo between them. They took turns. carrying an IVF embryo. So you had two of these,

two of these kinds of stories in the last couple of weeks. And I think, I think what we see here, especially with the first story, just focusing on that for a moment, we see the continued commodification of human life. This,

this treating life like a commodity, like a thing, like a product, an asset. Lots of places can expose you to a, identity theft. Oh, no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second

for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own. If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away. All through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference.

Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash special offer. Terms apply. And people ask me sometimes about IVF how I feel about it. This is why I don't like it. This is why I don't like IVF. You want to talk about slippery slopes. Well, this is very clear that once we start treating human life this way, you are on that slope.

And we can even leave aside the spiritual, the religious aspects of this issue. Those are important, but we can leave those aside and just talk about this on secular terms. Because even if I were a secular person, even if I didn't believe in God, I would be saying the same thing. That it is a dangerous game that we play when we go down this road of treating people like items. You know, there's that I dealt with several months ago. Someone what's supposed to be this indisputable, unanswerable pro-abortion. argument where someone says, well, what if there are a bunch of frozen embryos? What if there's a, maybe remember when we talk about this, talked about this, what if there's a fire in an IVF clinic?

And there are a bunch of frozen embryos that are, you know, about to be destroyed. And there's also a two-year-old child who happens to be in the IVF clinic as well without his parents. And for some reason, you can only save one. Which do you save? And they're trying to point out that, well, clearly you would save the two-year-old child, not the embryo. So obviously you're admitting, by their version of events here, you're admitting that the child is more human than the embryo, which is not what you're admitting, because that would just be scientifically inaccurate. But the point is, when they raise that argument, what they're really doing is raising an argument against IVF. They're raising an argument against treating embryos like this, because we shouldn't be in a

position. We should never be in a position where there are a bunch of leftover human embryos, and we have to figure out what to do with them. That hypothetical, it's only possible to discuss that hypothetical because this is how we treat human life. So I think it's a very, I think it's a very dangerous road to go down. And as science develops, I mean, maybe a hundred years from now, maybe 100 years from now, the sort of LGBT dream will be fulfilled. And maybe they'll be able to implant some sort of artificial uterus into a man who claims to be a woman and then implant an embryo into the uterus. And then maybe finally they can have their, who knows, you know, with the way medical science is developing. Maybe eventually they'll be able to create that kind of Frankenstein monstrosity and bring human life into the world.

world that way. Well, even if you don't think we're on the slippery slope yet with this stuff, would you admit that that at least is a slippery slope? Is there a limit? I find it kind of interesting that on the left, leftists are typically the ones who are very concerned about organic. They're very concerned about doing things the natural way, doing things in accordance with nature and all that. Well, why can't we take that philosophy? If we could take that philosophy and apply it to the produce section, if we can apply it, if we can live by that code when we're buying stocks of celery from the supermarket, then maybe we should consider the same code when we're deciding how to bring human life into the world. Maybe we should be concerned about nature, by doing

things the organic way because the more that we treat human life this way, the more we treat it like an object, it has the effect of just debasing life. And we start to see human life more and more as kind of an accessory. And you have a kid just for your own sake because you want an accessory because it's a fun thing to do, trading it back and forth, you know, like it's some sort of recreational thing. It's not about the child anymore, it's about us. And then when we can get into genetically modifying kids and, you know, it's like Gattaca or something, you've ever seen that movie, where you can decide specifically what kind of kid you want, you can select all these different details about them. Again, now we have made the child, we've made this, this human life

into something. It's completely about us. It's like we're building an accessory for our lives, rather than confronting the sacred miracle of actual human life. All right. Before I wrap up, I did want to, since we're on the subject of babies, I did want to say happy birthday to my youngest. Our youngest turned two yesterday. His birthday was yesterday. He watches all my videos, of course,

so that's why I'm saying happy birthday to him. His favorite present that we got him, by the way, was a little handheld vacuum. and this kid is obsessed with vacuums. I mean, he's absolutely obsessed. I think he mainly just likes machines that make loud noises, but he definitely has a specific affection for vacuums. Like, he has to go hug the vacuums in our house

before he goes to bed each night. So that's where we are, just to give you an idea of the extent of his vacuum addiction. But so he's two now, and I was thinking about this today, because people, when they hear that you have a two-year-old, they'll say, oh, no, the terrible twos, watch out. Watch out for the terrible twos. And here's the thing about that.

We've already done the terrible twos. We did them times two, because our oldest are twins, boy and girl, so we had two-year-olds at the same time. That's how it works to have twins. And so I think I could say that the terrible twos are fake news, totally overrated. this this anti-2 propaganda is ridiculous and it's it's agist on top of it these uh these scare tactics that people use when it comes to two-year-olds it's absurd and i want to say this to any new parents or future parents don't worry about two don't worry about toddling i mean kids at two are no problem yeah they have temper tantrums um but they don't know what's they don't know what's going

on in the world yet. You can still get them to stop crying by tickling them. You never have to really worry. When your kid's still at an age where you could basically get them to stop crying by tickling them or worse case giving them a lollipop or something like that, when they're still at that age where they can be satiated with tickles or a lollipop, it's, you know, it's not that bad. It's pretty good. And can I just say that I have known, I have known, as we all have, people in my life, okay? But none of them were two. None of them were kids at all. Of all the people that I've known that I would describe as terrible, none of them were little kids. I would not describe any little kid as actually being a terrible person. It's not possible for a

little kid to be a terrible person. The terrible people are adults. So why don't we ever refer to the terrible 40s or the terrible 30s or the terrible 60s? Can you stop a 40-year-old from throwing a hissie fit by tickling them? No, you can't. And I've tried. But when, you know, when, when, when, when, when, when, when kids are upset, okay, it only ever stems from, from one of, like, four things. If a kid, if a little kid is upset, it's because they're tired, or it's because they're hungry, or it's because they want something like a toy or candy, something simple, or they want your attention. Those are really the only four reasons why a kid ever gets upset. And most of those are pretty easy to deal. It's pretty easy to, you know, if they're tired, you put them down,

if they're hungry, maybe you give them some food. And it can be, it can be hard to deal with kids when they want one of those things. And obviously, you can't always just give them exactly what they want when they want it, or eventually they will turn into a legitimately terrible person. And it can be annoying, it can be exhausting to deal with kids. But I wouldn't describe any of this as terrible. You know what's terrible? Maliciousness. cruelty, passive aggressiveness, arrogance, selfish ambition, where you're just stepping over people in pursuit of your aims. And these are all adult traits. Worst of all, adults don't have an excuse. Children have an excuse to act like children. Adults don't. So if we're going to be

using this word terrible to describe anyone, I think it should be those kinds. It should be people who are capable of actual cruelty. There's never been a little kid who's cruel. That's never happened. I mean, there are little kids who can act cruel sometimes, but they don't know what they're doing. That's an adult thing. So there's my PC plea for the day.

Let's stop with the ageism. Call little kids terrible. If we're going to call anyone terrible, it should be. It should be people like me and you, adults, right? At least we have the capacity to be terrible. All right. We'll leave it there. Thanks for watching.

Everybody, thanks for listening. Godspeed.